The Columbian claims that “any successful reformer must excel in leadership and judgment. In the past several months Obama has distanced himself as the superior candidate in those two areas.”
On the Iraq War, The Columbian says “Obama prefers a quicker withdrawal of troops than we would like, but his proven leadership and solid judgment indicate he can resolve the Iraq dilemma collaboratively.”
Collaboratively means to work together. With whom exactly will Obama work that hasn’t already been done by the current administration?
Iraq? Pakistan? England? Great Britain? Already being done.
The UN? An organization which sits thugs on its Human Rights commission, routinely turns it s head from human rights violations (e.g. Darfur), has done nothing to stop Hezbollah rocket attacks into Israel, ran the Iraq Food for Oil scandal, and had at least 16 resolutions against Iraq and their weapons program.
France? Profiters from the Oil for Food scandal under Chirac. Maybe now under Sarkozy who wishes to work more closely with the U.S. than Chirac. But then that occurred under the current administration which is working with France.
al-Qaeda? As was famously pointed out, what would Obama say that would change their minds about killing us? Would he charm them with his intelligence, with his eloquence, with his movie star good-looks?
Obama, in fact, staunchly opposed the surge, a strategy recommended by General Petraeus and supported by Senator McCain. Obama continued to claim it was the wrong strategy even after it was clear the surge was working.
Then, when the situation on the ground in Iraq was becoming stable and the Iraqi’s started talking of a timetable for U.S. troop withdrawal, Obama audaciously claimed that the Iraqi’s were agreeing with his view that there needed to be a timetable on withdraw. But the Iraqi’s only talked about a timetable because the situation had improved so drastically; an improvement that came about by the very surge policy that Obama opposed.
Put another way, had Obama’s position prevailed the violence in Iraq would have continued (what was going to stop it – talk?). Or we would have left and Iraq would have likely descended into civil war where thousands of innocent people would have perished including those Iraqis who had the courage to stand along side us.
McCain was right. Obama was wrong. Where was Obama’s solid judgment. Obama went with the left wing anti-war wing of his party and with the way the country was leaning. McCain said the right thing to do is the surge even if it is not popular. He listened to the military leaders on the ground. Obama listened to what was politically expedient.
It was McCain who showed “proven leadership and solid judgment” not Obama.
And let’s not forget Obama’s “proven leadership and solid judgment” when Russia went deep into Georgia territory in their conflict over South Ossetia. As Reuters reported, Obama stated, “Now is the time for Georgia and Russia to show restraint”
That’s like telling both the rapist and victim “to show restraint”.
The Columbian only provided sweeping generalizations in their endorsement of Obama. They provided no examples (i.e. evidence) to support their generalizations because the facts (i.e. evidence) would show their generalizations to be suspect.
McCain has proven his leadership over his years in the Senate, as a Navy fighter pilot, and as a POW. As this series has shown in the examples provided, McCain has shown solid judgment on the most critical issues of our time.
When intellectually honest people actually look at the FACTS it becomes clear that John McCain is far and above more qualified to lead the greatest nation on earth than Barak Obama.
Previous posts:
The Columbian Endorses Obama
Columbian Endorses Obama – Pt. 2
Columbian Endorses Obama – Leadership
Columbian Endorses Obama – Judgment
Updated: To add links for the Previous Post section.
No comments:
Post a Comment